G
GodKiller
which ? why ?
M
Mike
GodKiller said:
Vista. Faster.
Mike
G
GodKiller
Vista is faster ??? only this ?? the ram of your computer may be 2G.
J
Jim
I'm undecided!
Vista is definitely faster for everything - boot up, program load,
etc.
But some things take a lot longer to do. Admittedly familairity is a
problem there, but some things are harder. For example I do loads of
work in Explorer, and it's jst not as easy to use (simple example: in
XP you could highlight a filename to copy it to the clipboard, but
Vista prevents you doing this if the file is on a read-only drive).
And of course the first thing I do on the Vista installs is disable
UAC. UAC is just plain inhibitive/ Nice concept, just very poorly
done.
Overall conclusion: Give me Vista's speed with XPs GUI and I'd be
happy!
Jim
A
Alias
GodKiller said:
Ubuntu, faster and safer.
Alias
P
Paul-B
Jim said:
I've done this, but still get that annoying pop-up advising me that uac
is switched-off.
Is there a way of disabling this?
M
MICHAEL
Paul-B said:
Go into Security Center and look to the left, you'll
see "Change The way Security Center Alerts me".
The third option is what you want.
-Michael
S
Saucy
There's no preferring one or the other. XP is dead. Vista is where it's at.
N
NewFox
please provide proof that vista is faster.
It is not faster. Its your imagination, or you are comparing XP that had
lots of
applications and codecs and stuf loaded, with a freshly installed Vista.
Other than the boot and shut down, vista is not faster at all.
In fact I reformated this pc and installed XP again AFTER I had vista...
and its so fast I am astonished!
It is not faster. Its your imagination, or you are comparing XP that had
lots of
applications and codecs and stuf loaded, with a freshly installed Vista.
Other than the boot and shut down, vista is not faster at all.
In fact I reformated this pc and installed XP again AFTER I had vista...
and its so fast I am astonished!
N
NewFox
delusions are common in here..
Vista is slower, only the boot and shut down time has improved.
Vista is slower, only the boot and shut down time has improved.
P
Paul-B
MICHAEL said:
Many thanks.
S
Saucy
Ubuntu is Linux and Linux sucks. End of story.
Alias said:
K
Kerry Brown
Vista.
Many reasons why, but the number one reason is because I'm a geek and like
learning new stuff.
Many reasons why, but the number one reason is because I'm a geek and like
learning new stuff.
A
Alias
Saucy said:
Thank you for your uninformed opinion. 'Course we all know what an MS
fanboi you are so we will take your opinion with a grain of salt.
Did you think you were being cute and clever by changing my post?
Alias
J
John Barnett MVP
Vista 'is' faster on high spec PC or 64Bit PCs. Standard 32 bit and lower to
mid range PCs Vista is a lot slower. Infact XP is faster.
On my machine, which is a 2.8Ghz with 1.5GB RAM the Vista boot up time is
exactly the same as XP (this machine dual boots bothe XP and Vista).
Shutdown is somewhat faster, but only fractions of a second. Program startup
is also slower than on XP, even worse if UAC kicks in.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
mid range PCs Vista is a lot slower. Infact XP is faster.
On my machine, which is a 2.8Ghz with 1.5GB RAM the Vista boot up time is
exactly the same as XP (this machine dual boots bothe XP and Vista).
Shutdown is somewhat faster, but only fractions of a second. Program startup
is also slower than on XP, even worse if UAC kicks in.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
B
BChat
Many reasons why, but the number one reason is because I'm a geek and like
learning new stuff.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
This works for me too
I'll have Vista Ultimate when it is available
BChat
learning new stuff.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
GodKiller said:
This works for me too
I'll have Vista Ultimate when it is available
BChat
A
Alias
Saucy said:
No, XP isn't dead. It will be around for years, as will the support for
it. Where do you get this fantasies from?
Alias
J
Jan Ilacqua [MVP]
GodKiller said:
Vista. Faster. Easier Internet and Network connection
Hope this helps.
Jan
MS MVP - Windows IE
M
MICHAEL
I basically agree. I have been using Vista since Beta2, and it has
become my main OS on this laptop. I also have RC2 installed on
two desktops. All three computers are dual-boot environments;
WinXP Pro and Vista. Overall, XP just feels faster and more responsive.
I have become used to Vista, though. For me, the difference in XP
being "faster" is not by much, and I have actually grown fond of Vista's
GUI. My biggest complaint with Vista is the gawd awful slowness in
transferring files, especially, over a network- except when I use WinXP
in VPC 2007 on Vista. It is quite amusing to me that a virtual XP transfers
files quicker than my host Vista. Ironically, the one machine that Vista
might be a bit faster on, is an older Dell desktop that doesn't have Aero
Glass available- the old Nvidia card won't do it. Because of that old card
I get a rating of 1 on that machine. However, Vista still looks nice on that
computer and performs very well. I was pleasantly surprised.
-Michael
become my main OS on this laptop. I also have RC2 installed on
two desktops. All three computers are dual-boot environments;
WinXP Pro and Vista. Overall, XP just feels faster and more responsive.
I have become used to Vista, though. For me, the difference in XP
being "faster" is not by much, and I have actually grown fond of Vista's
GUI. My biggest complaint with Vista is the gawd awful slowness in
transferring files, especially, over a network- except when I use WinXP
in VPC 2007 on Vista. It is quite amusing to me that a virtual XP transfers
files quicker than my host Vista. Ironically, the one machine that Vista
might be a bit faster on, is an older Dell desktop that doesn't have Aero
Glass available- the old Nvidia card won't do it. Because of that old card
I get a rating of 1 on that machine. However, Vista still looks nice on that
computer and performs very well. I was pleasantly surprised.
-Michael
O
Oenone
GodKiller said:
I think ultimately I'll be happy to move to Vista, but until the hardware
vendors get drivers sorted out I'm sticking with XP. Beta drivers that are
designed for Vista RC2 don't fill me with confidence... Hopefully only a few
more weeks and this will be history though.